Which religion is best?

[Despatche]

As BulletMagnet has illustrated for us, this is all semantics. For those of you going in here without that in mind (there's at least one from what I've read), I feel so sorry for you.

Anyone who isn't a pure skeptic accepts some things on faith. And I hold that it's psychologically impossible to be a pure skeptic.

It's too easy, because it's an on/off switch that normally affects nothing.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

Which religion is best?

Icycalm

[Randorama]

Which religion is best?

Icycalm

I totally approve of this post!

[Moniker]

Anyone who isn't a pure skeptic accepts some things on faith. And I hold that it's psychologically impossible to be a pure skeptic.

It's too easy, because it's an on/off switch that normally affects nothing.

You mean faith? Not sure I get your meaning.

[Ed Oscuro]

As BulletMagnet has illustrated for us, this is all semantics.

I feel bad at poking sticks in cages, so at the risk of doing that: Are you saying that arguments about the possibility of an objective truth, even if empirically unverifiable, are just semantics?

i.e. Einstein walks in the room, says "God doesn't play dice with the universe," and leaves, you're going to say that's just semantics, right?

I think I get your point re the on-off switch, but I think that it is at least usually harmless for people to try to investigate the possibility of these seemingly unverifiable truths (harmful approaches can usually be ruled out). If one is verified, that promises to be very good (or very bad, I suppose).

Of course, even basic familiarity with the whole mindset of analytic philosophy casts doubt as to whether that is the vehicle to get there. I think it's John Bell who says that the person who might figure out some of these questions might well start out interested in something else entirely; he uses the analogy of a fly buzzing against a windowscreen when there's a door open in the other room.

[xbl0x180]

Saying that "atheism is a belief" makes about as much sense as saying you "believe" you are "a male"... since you were born as one I wasn't born "believing" in this hogwash and when I heard about it, it sounded like some far-fetched faerie tale. Yeah, I also believe unicorns, elves, and dragons don't exist because they factually do not exist

[Friendly]

Saying that "atheism is a belief" makes about as much sense as saying you "believe" you are "a male"... since you were born as one I wasn't born "believing" in this hogwash and when I heard about it, it sounded like some far-fetched faerie tale. Yeah, I also believe unicorns, elves, and dragons don't exist because they factually do not exist

But how do you know they factually don't exist? They could be hiding in a cave somewhere, along with god and the easter bunny.

Anway, I'm an atheist because religion is man-made bullshit (simple truth, deal with it). I was born an atheist, and my understanding of reality has consolidated this position.

[njiska]

Saying that "atheism is a belief" makes about as much sense as saying you "believe" you are "a male"... since you were born as one

That sounds a lot like, "Zero isn't a Real Number because you can't count zero". Which furthers the point made by BulletMagnet's awesome image.

[Friendly]

You are being silly, just like religion.

[Randorama]

That sounds a lot like, "Zero isn't a Real Number because you can't count zero". Which furthers the point made by BulletMagnet's awesome image.

Can you believe that I had a Calculus professor saying precisely that? Mind you, he was good at everything else, but he even forced us to study on his book in which he wrote down this and other bizarre ideas about foundations of arithmetic. Actually, he firmly believed in some "heterodox" approach to Mathematics, so he had some kind of hidden agenda in imposing his truth (!).

[njiska]

That sounds a lot like, "Zero isn't a Real Number because you can't count zero". Which furthers the point made by BulletMagnet's awesome image.

Can you believe that I had a Calculus professor saying precisely that? Mind you, he was good at everything else, but he even forced us to study on his book in which he wrote down this and other bizarre ideas about foundations of arithmetic. Actually, he firmly believed in some "heterodox" approach to Mathematics, so he had some kind of hidden agenda in imposing his truth (!).

Sounds like every college professor I've ever known Still, it's completely ludicrous. I do remember pissing someone off once by asking them to plot (not a number, not a number) on a cartesian grid.

[Ed Oscuro]

Saying that "atheism is a belief" makes about as much sense as saying you "believe" you are "a male"... since you were born as one I wasn't born "believing" in this hogwash and when I heard about it, it sounded like some far-fetched faerie tale. Yeah, I also believe unicorns, elves, and dragons don't exist because they factually do not exist

Don't let your prejudices about the seriousness of the word fool you: You have a belief that theism is false. You can say that you get those beliefs are justified by the apparent structure of the universe, the apparent uselessness of things, but it is still a belief. Skeptics (like David Hume) have always realized that there is some gap between objective reality (if there is such a thing) and your concept of it. For example, you could believe that you're looking at a far-off mountain, until you noticed that it's actually a painting on a wall. If you leave and come back, you'll likely hold the belief that you're not looking at a mountain but a painting, even if I secretly knocked it down so you can see an actual mountain in the distance. You can always try to investigate these things, but you don't always meet with success. Especially when it comes to things that sound crazy and improbable, but which can't be easily determined (i.e. is Einstein right about a hidden variables structure for quantum mechanics, or is Niels Bohr right and there is nothing predetermined?)

Some folks try to badger agnostics into believing that they are actually atheists, but agnosticism simply is the recognition that you don't have enough information to determine one way or another. This is not to say that atheism is false or even that it is likely to be false; you can have atheist beliefs without having convinced yourself that you can prove atheism conclusively (i.e., to everybody's satisfaction). I believe that most agnostics lean heavily towards atheism.

And finally, it's a common logical error to say "unicorns, elves, and dragons don't exist because they factually do not exist." This is based on probability, so you would have to say they probably don't exist. The probability of dragons, elves, and unicorns not existing is not known because they logically could exist, and they might exist somewhere in the universe (maybe not with all the qualities people expect; maybe dragons are hiding in suns like they sometimes do). While there is nothing wrong with a probabilistic argument that these things don't exist, that doesn't give you license to say that "factually they don't exist," which would require a deductive argument - and you generally can't prove a negative like this. It would be better to say something like what the Dawkins gang bus advert says: "There's probably no dragons, elves, or unicorns, so don't worry about it." The same goes for archeological or fossil evidence, strangely enough, although in those cases the confidence is so great that people can commonly talk about "deductions" based on this evidence.

[Randorama]

ù

Sounds like every college professor I've ever known Still, it's completely ludicrous. I do remember pissing someone off once by asking them to plot (not a number, not a number) on a cartesian grid.

[trap15]

Muhaha, my evil experiment has succeeded! I have combined all of the worst discussion topics on the forum to create a thread with 100% shitposting!

[njiska]

Muhaha, my evil experiment has succeeded! I have combined all of the worst discussion topics on the forum to create a thread with 100% shitposting

Actually this is one of the more intellectually minded threads we've had recently. The debates may have been largely pointless, but at least the discussion was interesting.

[Udderdude]

Muhaha, my evil experiment has succeeded! I have combined all of the worst discussion topics on the forum to create a thread with 100% shitposting!

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Saying that "atheism is a belief" makes about as much sense as saying you "believe" you are "a male"... since you were born as one I wasn't born "believing" in this hogwash and when I heard about it, it sounded like some far-fetched faerie tale. Yeah, I also believe unicorns, elves, and dragons don't exist because they factually do not exist

lol just talking semantics /shitpost

I'm glad someone else gets why the "believe it just cause/feels good/some book told me" beliefs are radically different/distinct from "we have solid evidence/no good evidence to support this shit" beliefs to the point of being incomparable.

[xbl0x180]

Saying that "atheism is a belief" makes about as much sense as saying you "believe" you are "a male"... since you were born as one

That sounds a lot like, "Zero isn't a Real Number because you can't count zero". Which furthers the point made by BulletMagnet's awesome image.

The mathematical concept of zero, the number, as well as "imaginary numbers" (i.e., the square root of -1), are not the same as "being born not believing in a buncha crap made up to control weak-minded people and make lots of money in the process." Again, I wasn't born believing in faerie tales either, so you all can also consider me as an afaerist

[Vyxx]

Jesus had two dads, why can't we?

[antron]

Something I was wondering yesterday (and many times before):

How can a mother be happy in heaven if her child is in hell? Is she so changed by the process that she no longer cares if her child is in torment? Is she still human?

I'm not sure that's a transformation I would ever want to make.

[xbl0x180]

Something I was wondering yesterday (and many times before):

How can a mother be happy in heaven if her child is in hell? Is she so changed by the process that she no longer cares if her child is in torment? Is she still human?

I'm not sure that's a transformation I would ever want to make.

If it's the Judeo-Christian idea, then a mother is not supposed to love a son more than God. The mother loves God more

[antron]

If it's the Judeo-Christian idea, then a mother is not supposed to love a son more than God. The mother loves God more

it seems a bit more stark than that. if you can be happy knowing something is in torment I'd say you don't love it at all.

[xbl0x180]

If it's the Judeo-Christian idea, then a mother is not supposed to love a son more than God. The mother loves God more

it seems a bit more stark than that. if you can be happy knowing something is in torment I'd say you don't love it at all.

It was God's will and, since he's perfect and infallible, it cannot be questioned at all. By extension, it's up to God whether the mother will feel happy or sad that her son is burning in hell for eternity. After all, there isn't anything she can do that isn't already known to God (i.e., if God meant for the mother to feel sad, then she will feel sad. If God meant for her to ignore her son's eternal suffering, then she will ignore her son's suffering)

[antron]

sad in heaven?

or changed so much you ignore your child's suffering? That's hardly surviving death.

[BIL]

Presumably God will smooth out your brainmeats so you won't worry over such things. Free of charge.

[xbl0x180]

sad in heaven?

or changed so much you ignore your child's suffering? That's hardly surviving death.

That's not really up to the mother, though. As I said, it's God who would cause all of it and one can't really question God's will since he is perfect and infallible (in the Judeo-Christian version)

[antron]

I'm not sure Jews necessarily believe in an afterlife, or hell. At least that's what my town's Rabbi told my religion class in catholic high school. You should have seen the rednecks (who probably weren't catholic) in the class who wanted to rip his head off.

[Cagar]

-

[Ed Oscuro]

I have combined all of the worst discussion topics on the forum to create a thread with 100% shitposting!

Hey man, my posts are 100% freshpost, don't be panderin' an' projectin'.

If it's the Judeo-Christian idea, then a mother is not supposed to love a son more than God. The mother loves God more

it seems a bit more stark than that. if you can be happy knowing something is in torment I'd say you don't love it at all.

It was God's will and, since he's perfect and infallible, it cannot be questioned at all. By extension, it's up to God whether the mother will feel happy or sad that her son is burning in hell for eternity. After all, there isn't anything she can do that isn't already known to God (i.e., if God meant for the mother to feel sad, then she will feel sad. If God meant for her to ignore her son's eternal suffering, then she will ignore her son's suffering)

It doesn't work like that if there is free will (which seems to be an alternate way of saying "God isn't omniscient after all," but few people want to admit this).

I think the proposed situation of a mother and a child speaks to sexism (not just in the Old Testament...). If it was a father you know there would be a ready "why didn't I learn ya proper" response ready, of course!

[xbl0x180]

It doesn't work like that if there is free will (which seems to be an alternate way of saying "God isn't omniscient after all," but few people want to admit this).

Then it must be established that the Judeo-Christian God is not all-knowing: God doesn't know the future, God doesn't know how his creations were intended to work, etc. Is this an idea widely accepted by all Judeo-Christian sects